It's Unnecessary But, AMD Is Basically Lying About CPU Performance

[gamerk2]

2 CPUs have the exact same price.

CPU A is much faster in gaming than CPU B but I don't know that cause reviewers instead of testing with a 4090 they are testing with a 6600. So I buy CPU B, and down the line when I upgrade my GPU I realize my CPU is holding it back.

So I bought the wrong CPU for my usecase because the CPU review - instead of testing the actual CPU, they were testing the 6600.

Got it now?

It's not that hard a concept to grasp, yet somehow some fail to grasp it.

 

[Achaios]

This is your banana

https://tpucdn.com/review/intel-core-i5-13600k/images/power-games.png

Perf at stock.

Am I supposed to like, take this seriously?

 

[Strawman]

Perf at stock.

Am I supposed to like, take this seriously?

You are supposed to say "ops, it doesn't consume 300w in gaming after all"

 

[Emu81]

AMD is right here. It makes no sense to get $300 CPU and put double that for GPU. $300 CPU and RX6600 makes perfect sense.

To be more precise, running games on GPU limited scenario is only thing that actually makes sense IRL. Low resolution benchmarks are for situations that almost never exist on real life scenarios.

Why does it not make sense to pay double the cost of the CPU for a GPU? My current GPU cost me double what my CPU cost me. Out of the 5 PCs in my household all have GPUs that cost at least double what the CPU does and that goes as far back as the 4790 paired with a 980 ti (COVID/crypto booms really screwed up my intended upgrade cycle for everyone).

 

[Gezzer]

1. Both AMD and Intel have been known to cook the books so to speak.
2. The job of marketing is to find a way to make their product look more attractive than the competition. How? Well either make a better product at a lower price point, or see point 1.
3. It's a well known issue that 1-2% is within the margin of error when testing. So saying your CPU is faster by that margin is pretty much just saying it's the same.
4. Taking any testing as legitimate that isn't independent is a foolish move. Why? See point 1.

I personally ignore all the marketing testing from all tech companies because as I said their job is to convince me to buy the product they're promoting. So yeah, AMD "cooked the books" what else is new?

 

[oldtink]

So the Corporats at AMD are worse or the same as Intel ones? Who would have guess it?

Agreed. Benchmarks are easy to game? Who would have guess it? And how much does a i9-14900k cost? Lets continue the flogging. How about frames/watt? More flogging. Dead horses abound.

 

[HardReset]

1: Not everyone focuses on having every setting at maximum values; there's a lot of us who want a CPU that will handle 1440p for the next 4-5 years.

2: There will always be *some* noise even in GPU bound situations.

1. CPU that can handle 1440p? I thought 1440p needs pretty good GPU. I also claim that most CPUs that was able to handle 1440p 5 years ago can also do it today. Assuming GPU is good enough.

2. Of course but if consistently one CPU is faster, then it does something better.

Why does it not make sense to pay double the cost of the CPU for a GPU? My current GPU cost me double what my CPU cost me. Out of the 5 PCs in my household all have GPUs that cost at least double what the CPU does and that goes as far back as the 4790 paired with a 980 ti (COVID/crypto booms really screwed up my intended upgrade cycle for everyone).

Because generally there are budget constraints. AMD APUs basically make no sense because discrete GPU easily gives more speed. But when going on budget, their price/performance ratio is very good. At least on some cases. Again I'm talking about big picture, not single users POV.

 

[MSIGamer]

Thanks Steve! I hate poor marketing. And now we also know that what cpu you have doesn't matter much at all if you own a mid range gpu, which is the case for most people.

 

[Mokona]

Manufacturer benchmarks have always been like Tinder profile pictures - under certain highly specific conditions, in the right lighting, when all the stars align perfectly, and you're blind-drunk/on multiple hallucinogenic substances, the real-life experience may match what you've been shown.

But under normal conditions?

It's advertising. Have you ever seen a Big Mac look anything like they do in the commercials? Of course not, because those are made of wax, by master artisans, and then digitally enhanced for maximum hunger appeal.

Chip makers will always put out some sort of graph that makes their product look like it comes with a complimentary second coming of Jesus, and he's even brought you a sandwich, just in case you get hungry as you float up to heaven for an eternity of never-ending bliss.

No one expects these things to be realistic, except for those with exceptionally poor highly judgement and a highly tenuous grip on reality. You see these things and go "Hey, look, another chip - can't wait to see what the real-world performance looks like once it gets reviewed."

Their marketing department has to put out these graphs, because if they don't, people will accuse them of having something to hide. And they have to show performance exceeding their competitors, or some poor soul in the marketing department will end up ritually dismembered, desecrated, and their head put on a pike, as a warning to the others.

And before you ask, yes, marketing people do in fact have souls; I've confirmed this by tearing out and eating several. They taste like the content of that container of carry out Chinese food that's been in the back of your fridge since before you moved in, but they do exist.

Anyway - advertising has two purposes: to inform/remind you that a product or service exists, and to convince you to buy it. Notice how conveying factual information isn't in there? That's intentional.

Advertising was the created through a cooperative effort between Belial, Lord of Lies, and Beelzebub, Lord of flies. Hence, its fundamentally rotten, stinky and non-factual nature. "Truth in Advertising" is like "Ethics in Politics" - there might be a little in there somewhere, but it being there was definitely an accident.

 

[Lew Zealand]

I think you are right. If you tested with the GPUs people actually buy then we would quickly see that really we just need whatever is on offer for $200. At the moment a 12600K is remarkably well priced with a motherboard, just get that. These X3D chips are an absolute rip-off if you ask me. They suffer in productivity to give you like 10% more performance in games that you wont notice unless you are running like a watercooled 4090. AND they want more money for them. And the similar with the xx900 models from Intel. Just pretend they dont exist.

All that to say "trust me, bro"? LOL, have you used one?

The X3Ds are gaming processors which is what this article is about and they're the best for gaming. The 12600K is a decent deal but the 7800X3D is 24% faster at 1440p which matters to a lot of people as you can tune your visuals in games to match your GPU if you like frames. You rarely can tune CPU use (crowd density in a few). Even the 5800X3D is 7% faster and that's a simple drop-in replacement for loads of existing AM4 systems.

And that's before the X3D's killer feature, 1% lows. That's where they make the most difference, making your gameplay smoother. Unfortunately only 1080p results for that but the 7800X3D is 37% faster and the 5800X3D is 10% faster.

Oh and the 12600K is "only" 13% faster than the 5800X3D in productivity and 14% slower than the 7800X3D. I guess you wouldn't notice that difference either then. So for gaming get the 7800X3D with the big bonus for future processor generations and the 5800X3D is you're already have an AM4 setup.

Source: TPU's 14900KS review.

 

[Mokona]

1. Both AMD and Intel have been known to cook the books so to speak.
2. The job of marketing is to find a way to make their product look more attractive than the competition. How? Well either make a better product at a lower price point, or see point 1.
3. It's a well known issue that 1-2% is within the margin of error when testing. So saying your CPU is faster by that margin is pretty much just saying it's the same.
4. Taking any testing as legitimate that isn't independent is a foolish move. Why? See point 1.

I personally ignore all the marketing testing from all tech companies because as I said their job is to convince me to buy the product they're promoting. So yeah, AMD "cooked the books" what else is new?

They didn't so much cook the books, as that they carefully took only the most positive test results from the books, from tests designed to generate positive results, and left the rest out. Which is pretty standard. Cooking the books implies actually manipulating the data itself, they only cherry picked data from cherry picked testing scenarios.

But yes, them, or anyone selling anything, doing this is about as surprising as water being wet, or fire being hot. All major companies have whole departments dedicated entirely to this kind of thing. I've been more shocked to discover I have a belly button while looking in the mirror in the morning.

 

[MaxSmarties]

Speaking about bad marketing… Did they think people wouldn’t see their bluff ?

 

[MaxSmarties]

AMD is right here. It makes no sense to get $300 CPU and put double that for GPU. $300 CPU and RX6600 makes perfect sense.

To be more precise, running games on GPU limited scenario is only thing that actually makes sense IRL. Low resolution benchmarks are for situations that almost never exist on real life scenarios.

And what else to expect by the number one AMD fanboy here ?

 

[Lew Zealand]

Speaking about bad marketing… Did they think people wouldn’t see their bluff ?

This is it right here. How could AMD's marketing be so stupid not to see this would completely backfire and make the company look like fools. And I dunno but no matter the parts being compared, seeing a graph with flat 100% matching is a boring presentation, useless advertising. Lol maybe that's what they were hoping for!

 

[manowar51]

All that to say "trust me, bro"? LOL, have you used one?

The X3Ds are gaming processors which is what this article is about and they're the best for gaming. The 12600K is a decent deal but the 7800X3D is 24% faster at 1440p which matters to a lot of people as you can tune your visuals in games to match your GPU if you like frames. You rarely can tune CPU use (crowd density in a few). Even the 5800X3D is 7% faster and that's a simple drop-in replacement for loads of existing AM4 systems.

And that's before the X3D's killer feature, 1% lows. That's where they make the most difference, making your gameplay smoother. Unfortunately only 1080p results for that but the 7800X3D is 37% faster and the 5800X3D is 10% faster.

Oh and the 12600K is "only" 13% faster than the 5800X3D in productivity and 14% slower than the 7800X3D. I guess you wouldn't notice that difference either then. So for gaming get the 7800X3D with the big bonus for future processor generations and the 5800X3D is you're already have an AM4 setup.

Source: TPU's 14900KS review.

I mean if you cherry pick the very best results when using the fastest GPU available then yeah you might see a whole 24%? For more than 50% more of the cost? How does that make any sense? Also the 12600K. The X3D isn't faster by enough to make it better for future generations. The next gen AMD stuff (non X3D) will be faster.

Its your money buy an X3D if you like, AMDs marketing is targeting gamers. But the numbers are clear to me, these chips are not worth the premium you pay for them unless you have like a watercooled 4090 and a 1080p monitor.

If you are running like a 4070 or something, you will really not get the benefit of an X3D over a basic i5 or R5. Its just a waste of money.

 

[maroon1]

AMD is right here. It makes no sense to get $300 CPU and put double that for GPU. $300 CPU and RX6600 makes perfect sense.

i3 12100 and i5 12400F will perform as good Ryzen 5 5800X3D in GPU-limited games

AMD is still deceptive. AMD benchmarks implies that than their older CPU can compete with top intel CPU in games but they ignore the fact that Intel older i5 and i3 can do same thing, it will get same performance as AMD best parts when using low-end GPU at 1080p

 

[HardReset]

And what else to expect by the number one AMD fanboy here ?

Always wanted to be number one

If you don't like what AMD is saying, it's not a lie unless you can prove it is a lie. Simple. And just because you don't like it, does not make it a lie.

Using same logic, you can say Techspot is basically lying because they show CPU differences using high end GPU. That makes no more sense than what AMD is doing here.

i3 12100 and i5 12400F will perform as good Ryzen 5 5800X3D in GPU-limited games

AMD is still deceptive. AMD benchmarks implies that than their older CPU can compete with top intel CPU in games but they ignore the fact that Intel older i5 and i3 can do same thing, it will get same performance as AMD best parts when using low-end GPU at 1080p

And? Accusing AMD of lying when AMDs data is indeed accurate is misleading. Again, unless AMDs results are flawed, there is no lying involved.

AMD didn't ignore that fact, AMD just didn't show i3 or i5 results on graph. Not showing something is not ignoring.

 

[WhiteLeaff]

You are also using a questionable methodology, by pairing expensive DDR5 ram with low-end and mid-end cpus.

 

[Lew Zealand]

You are also using a questionable methodology, by pairing expensive DDR5 ram with low-end and mid-end cpus.

They also used expensive DDR4 for the AMD parts compared here. AMD chose the i5-13600K and i7-13700K which are mid and high end, not low.

FWIW, their DDR4 isn't even available now and the closest available 32GB 3600 CL14 is $249 though you can get 32GB 3600 CL16 for $75. The DDR5 7200 CL34 is $115, not a huge spread and DDR5 6600 CL34 is $100 if you need to spend a bit less for a negligible performance difference.

 

[i like foxes]

I am interested in Ryzen 9000 series .

 

[WhiteLeaff]

They also used expensive DDR4 for the AMD parts compared here. AMD chose the i5-13600K and i7-13700K which are mid and high end, not low.

FWIW, their DDR4 isn't even available now and the closest available 32GB 3600 CL14 is $249 though you can get 32GB 3600 CL16 for $75. The DDR5 7200 CL34 is $115, not a huge spread and DDR5 6600 CL34 is $100 if you need to spend a bit less for a negligible performance difference.

DDR4 is cheap, you can get a 32gb 3200-3600mhz ddr4 kit for U$ 40-60. A 7200mhz ddr5 kit costs double or triple that in the US, and even more in other countries.

 

[Sighs]

So in this testing, did you use the Intel recommended baseline for the CPUs, or did you use the already-overclocked out of the box settings that are causing 1x900k/f/s to crash? You'd be lying if you were trying to compare AMD baseline with anything other than Intel baseline.

Testing AMD, which requires adherence to their baseline, against Intel, without adhering to Intel's baseline, is disingenuous at best and straight up lying at worst.

 

[Lew Zealand]

DDR4 is cheap, you can get a 32gb 3200-3600mhz ddr4 kit for U$ 40-60. A 7200mhz ddr5 kit costs double or triple that in the US, and even more in other countries.

If we're down to DDR4-3200 now then buy DDR5-6400, much cheaper than 7200.

 

[cmppc]

All that to say "trust me, bro"? LOL, have you used one?

The X3Ds are gaming processors which is what this article is about and they're the best for gaming. The 12600K is a decent deal but the 7800X3D is 24% faster at 1440p which matters to a lot of people as you can tune your visuals in games to match your GPU if you like frames. You rarely can tune CPU use (crowd density in a few). Even the 5800X3D is 7% faster and that's a simple drop-in replacement for loads of existing AM4 systems.

And that's before the X3D's killer feature, 1% lows. That's where they make the most difference, making your gameplay smoother. Unfortunately only 1080p results for that but the 7800X3D is 37% faster and the 5800X3D is 10% faster.

Oh and the 12600K is "only" 13% faster than the 5800X3D in productivity and 14% slower than the 7800X3D. I guess you wouldn't notice that difference either then. So for gaming get the 7800X3D with the big bonus for future processor generations and the 5800X3D is you're already have an AM4 setup.

Source: TPU's 14900KS review.

x3d isn't for gaming if the x3d perform worst in 99.9% games ... you lose so much performance in optimized game with larger cache size so the only advantage is the miss hit but again, we're already using dod pattern to avoid miss hit by aligning data in memory so meh

 

[cmppc]

If we're down to DDR4-3200 now then buy DDR5-6400, much cheaper than 7200.

6400 is just a bit more cheaper than 7200 but perform also very bad compared to 7200 mt/s. I use 8200 stick cl38 and I have 23 fps difference in 5k between a basic 6400mhz and my 8200 mhz ...